【對華政策的範式轉移】絕對是歷史性講話.
#成萬字 #萬言書 #頹譯都譯死人
----小弟頹譯------
蓬佩奧:謝謝。謝謝你們。州長,您的慷慨介紹。的確是這樣:當您在那個體育館裡散步時,說出“蓬佩奧”的名字,人們就會耳語。因為,我有一個兄弟,Mark,他是一個非常好,一位非常出色的籃球運動員。
請為藍鷹榮譽衛隊(Blue Eagles Honor Guard)及飛行員Kayla Highsmith下士對國歌的精彩演繹給多一次掌聲如何? (掌聲)
也要感謝Laurie牧師那動人的祈禱,我還要感謝Hugh Hewitt和尼克遜基金會的邀請讓我在這個重要的美國機構發言。很高興能受空軍人員演唱,由海軍陸戰隊介紹,讓個一個陸軍傢伙站在海軍傢伙的房子前面。 (笑聲)(按蓬佩奧曾在美國陸軍服役 )一切都很好。
很榮幸來到Yorba Linda,尼克遜的父親在那裡建立了他出生和成長的房屋。
在這困難時刻,使今天成為可能的尼克遜中心董事會和工作人員,感謝,感謝我和我的團隊使這一天成為可能。
我們很幸運能在觀眾中見到一些特別的嘉賓,包括我認識的Chris Nixon (尼克遜的孫,Christopher Nixon Cox)。我還要感謝Tricia Nixon和Julie Nixon Eisenhower (尼克遜兩位女兒)對這次訪問的支持。
我還想提一提幾位勇敢的中國持不同政見者,他們長途跋涉並出席。其他尊貴的客人-(掌聲)-尊貴的客人,謝謝您的光臨。那些在帳篷下的人,您們必須支付額外的費用(笑)。
以及那些正在觀看直播的人,感謝您的收看。
最後,正如州長所說,我在Santa Ana出生,離這裡不遠。今天有我的姐姐和她的丈夫在聽眾中。謝謝大家的光臨。我敢打賭,您從沒想過我會站在這裡。
我今天的講話是我在一系列中國演講中的第四組講話,我請國家安全顧問Robert O’Brien,聯邦調查局局長Chris Wray和司法部長Barr陪同我發言。
我們有一個非常明確的目標,一個實在的任務。這是在解釋美國與中國關係的不同方面,數十年來這種關係中出現的巨大失衡以及中國共產黨所計劃的霸權。
我們的目標是明確指出,特朗普總統的中國政策正在解決的對美國人的威脅是明顯的,並且我們正確立保障自由的戰略。Robert O’Brien談到了意識形態。聯邦調查局局長Wray談到了間諜活動。司法部長Barr談到了經濟學。現在,我今天的目標是將這一切匯總給美國人民,並詳細說明中國的威脅對我們的經濟,我們的自由,乃至全球自由民主國家的未來的衝擊。
自基辛格(Kissinger)博士秘密訪問中國以來,到明年已經過去了半個世紀,而尼克松總統訪華50週年也就在2022年。
那時世界大不一樣了。
我們以為與中國交往(engagement)將創造一個帶有友好合作前景的美好未來。
但是今天—今天我們仍然戴著口罩,看著疫性的死亡人數仍在增加,因為中共對世界的承諾沒有兌現。我們每天早上都在讀到鎮壓香港和新疆的新聞消息。
我們看到的中國貿易濫用行為的驚人數字使美國失去了工作,並給整個美國經濟帶來了沉重打擊,包括南加州。而且我們正在看著一支越來越強大,甚至更具威脅性的中國軍隊。
從加利福尼亞州到我的家鄉堪薩斯州以及其他地區,我都有著與美國人心中的疑問:從與中國交往至今,美國人民這50年見到了什麼?
領袖們曾說過的中國邁向自由與民主發展的理論是否正確?
這是中國對 "雙贏" 局面的定義嗎?
實際上,從國務卿的角度來看,美國更安全嗎?我們是否有更大的可能為我們自己實現和平,並為我們之後的子孫後代享有和平?
看,我們必須承認一個硬道理。我們必須承認一個硬道理,它將指導我們在未來幾十年中發展,如果我們要擁有一個自由的21世紀,而不是習近平夢想的中國世紀,那麼與中國盲目交往的舊範式坦白說是沒有贏的機會。我們決不能在此繼續,也絕不能重返。
正如特朗普總統已明確指出的那樣,我們需要一項保護美國經濟乃至我們生活方式的戰略。自由世界必須戰勝這一新的暴政。 The free world must triumph over this new tyranny.
現在,在我似乎不太希望拆除尼克遜總統的遺產之前,我想明確地說,他做了當時他認為最適合美國人民的事情,而且他很可能是對的。
他是中國的傑出學生,冷酷的勇士和中國人民的偉大仰慕者,正如我們一樣。
他意識到中國太重要而不能忽視,即使國力由於自身的共產主義野蠻行為而被削弱。這值得尼克遜給予極大的讚譽。
1967年,尼克遜在一篇非常著名的外交事務文章中解釋了他的未來戰略。
他的話是這樣的:他說:“從長遠來看,我們根本無法永遠把中國留在國際大家庭之外……在中國改變之前,世界不會安全。因此,我們的目標是 —在可能的範圍內,我們必須作出影響,而我們的目標應該是促使改變。”
我認為這是整篇文章中的關鍵詞:“促使改變”。
因此,在歷史性的北京之行中,尼克遜總統開始了我們的交住戰略。他崇高地尋求一個更自由,更安全的世界,並希望中國共產黨能兌現這一承諾。
隨著時間的流逝,美國決策者越來越多地認為,隨著中國變得更加繁榮,它將會對外開放,它會在國內變得更加自由,而實際上在國外所面臨的威脅卻越來越小,它將變得更加友好。這一切似乎都是不可避免的。
但是那個必然的時代已經過去了。我們一直在進行的這種交往並沒有帶來尼克遜總統希望所引起的中國內部的變化。事實是,我們的政策以及其他自由國家的政策使中國經濟從衰落得以恢復,但北京反咬了養活它的國際力量。
我們曾向中國公民張開雙臂,只是看到中國共產黨利用我們的自由開放社會。中國派宣傳員參加了我們的新聞發布會,研究中心,高中,大學,甚至參加了家長教師會議。
我們將台灣的朋友邊緣化,後來台灣蓬勃發展為積極的民主國家。
我們給中國共產黨和政權本身以特殊的經濟待遇,只是看到中共堅持以對其人權侵犯保持沉默作為讓西方公司進入中國市場的代價。
前一天,Robert O’Brien大使舉了幾個例子:萬豪,美國航空,達美航空,聯合航空都從其公司網站上刪除了對台灣的提及,以免激怒北京。在荷里活,這裏的不遠處,距離美國創作自由的中心和自命為社會正義的仲裁者,他們的自我審查可說是對中國發展最不利的參考。
公司對CCP的默許也發生在世界各地。
這種企業忠誠度如何運作?奉承會得到獎勵嗎?讓我引述Barr總檢察長在講話。他在上週的一次演講中說:“中國統治者的最終野心不是與美國進行貿易。是要略奪美國。”
中國剝奪了我們寶貴的知識產權和商業機密,損失了在美國各地了數百萬個就業機會。它從美國吸走了供應鏈,然後添加了一個由奴隸制度製成的小工具。
它使世界上主要的水路對國際貿易而言變得不那麼安全。
尼克遜總統曾經說過,他擔心自己通過向中共開放世界而創造了一個“科學怪人”,這正是如此。
現在,有誠信的人可以辯論為什麼自由國家允許這些年來,這些不好的事情發生。也許我們對中國的惡毒的共產主義幼稚,或者在我們在冷戰勝利後變得自大,或者軟弱的資本主義者被北京所說的“和平崛起”所愚昧。
無論出於何種原因—無論出於何種原因,今天的中國在國內都越來越專制,並開始對其他地方的自由作出干預。
特朗普總統說:夠了。
我不認為兩派的人對我今天所說的事實提出異議。但是即使到現在,也有人堅持認為,為了對話而對話。
現在,要明確地說,我們將繼續討論。但是這些對話的意義是不同的。幾週前,我去了檀香山,與楊潔篪見面。
這是同樣的古老故事—說了很多話,但實際上沒有任何改變任何行為的提議。
楊的承諾,就像中共在他面前做出的許多承諾一樣,都是空洞的。我想,他的期望是我會屈服於他們的要求,因為坦率地說,這是許多前任政府所做的。我沒有,特朗普總統也不會。正如O’Brien很好地解釋的那樣,我們必須記住,中共政權是馬克思列寧主義政權。習近平堅信這已破產的極權主義思想。
正是這種意識形態,正是這種意識形態反映了他數十年來對全球共產主義中國霸權的渴望。美國再也不能忽視我們兩國之間的根本政治和意識形態差異,就像中共從來沒有忽視它們一樣。
以我在眾議院情報委員會,然後擔任中央情報局局長,以及擔任美國國務卿兩年多的經驗,使我對這種中央理解成為可能:
唯一的方式 — 真正改變共產主義中國的唯一方法,不是對中國領導人聽其言,而是觀其行。您會看到美國政策對此結論做出了回應。列根總統說,他是在“信任但要核實”的基礎上與蘇聯打交道的。關於中共,我說我們必須"不信任和核查"。 (掌聲)
我們,世界上熱愛自由的國家,必須像尼克遜總統所希望的那樣,促使中國發生變化。我們必須促使中國以更具創造性和果斷性的方式進行變革,因為北京的行動威脅著我們的人民和我們的繁榮。
我們必須首先改變我們的人民和我們的伙伴對中國共產黨的看法。我們必須說實話。我們不能像其他任何國家一樣,把這個假象視為正常國家。
我們知道,與中國進行貿易不像與一個正常的,遵守法律的國家進行貿易。北京威脅將國際協議視為—將協議視為建議,以作為主導全球的渠道。
但是,通過堅持公平條款,就像我們的貿易代表在獲得第一階段貿易協議時所做的那樣,我們可以迫使中國考慮其知識產權盜竊和損害美國工人的政策。
我們也知道,與擁有CCP支持的公司開展業務與與一家加拿大公司開展業務不同。他們不回答獨立委員會的問題,而且其中許多是由國家贊助的,因此無需追求利潤。
華為就是一個很好的例子。我們不再假裝華為是一家無辜的電信公司,它的出現是為了確保您可以和朋友聊天。我們稱其為真正的國家安全威脅,並為採取了相應的行動。
我們也知道,如果我們的公司在中國投資,他們可能會有意或無意地支持共產黨嚴重侵犯人權的行為。
因此,我們的美國財政部和商務部已批准並將那些危害和濫用世界人民最基本權利的中國領導人和實體列入黑名單。多個部門已就商業諮詢機構合作,以確保我們的CEO了解其供應鏈在中國境內的工作。
我們也知道,我們也知道並非所有的中國學生和僱員都只是來這裡賺錢和積累一些知識的普通學生和工人。他們太多人來這裡竊取我們的知識產權並將其帶回自己的國家。司法部和其他機構已對這些罪行進行了嚴厲的懲罰。
我們知道,解放軍也不是正規軍。其目的是維護中國共產黨精英的絕對統治,擴大中國帝國,而不是保護中國人民。
因此,美國國防部加大了工作力度,擴大了在東,南海以及台灣海峽以及整個海峽的航行操作自由。我們還建立了一支太空部隊,以幫助阻止中國對這一最後邊界的侵略。
同樣,坦率地說,我們在美國國務院制定了一套與中國打交道的新政策,推動特朗普總統實現公正與互惠的目標,以改寫幾十年來不斷加劇的失衡。
就在本週,我們宣布關閉在休斯敦的中國領事館,因為它是間諜和知識產權盜竊的樞紐。 (掌聲)
兩週前,我們在南中國海扭轉了過去八年忽略的國際法權益。
我們呼籲中國限制其核能力以適應當今時代的戰略現實。
國務院- 在世界各地,各個層面- 都與中國同行進行了交流,只是要求公平和互惠。
但是我們的方法不只是要變得強硬。那不可能達到我們想要的結果。我們還必須與中國人民互動並賦予他們權力,他們是一個充滿活力,熱愛自由的人民,他們與中國共產黨完全不同。首先是面對面的外交。 (掌聲)
無論我走到哪裡,我都遇到了有才華和勤奮的中國人。我遇過逃離新疆集中營的維吾爾族和哈薩克族。我曾與香港的民主領袖進行了交談,有陳日君樞機到黎智英。兩天前,我在倫敦會見了香港自由戰士羅冠聰。
上個月在我的辦公室裡,我聽到了天安門廣場倖存者的故事。其中之一今天在這裡。王丹是一名關鍵學生,他從未停止為中國人民爭取自由。王先生,請您站起來,以便我們見到您嗎? (掌聲)
今天與我們同在的還有中國民主運動之父魏京生。他在中國的勞改營度過了幾十年的時間。魏先生,你能站起來嗎? (掌聲)
我成長及服役於冷戰時期。如果我學到一件事,共產黨人幾乎總是撒謊。他們告訴我們的最大謊言是,他們認為自己能代表14億被監視,壓迫和害怕說出來的人。
恰恰相反。中共比任何敵人都更擔心中國人民的誠實觀點,失去對權力的控制。
試想一下,如果我們能夠從武漢的醫生那裡聽到他們的來信,並且允許他們對新疫病的爆發發出警報,那麼世界會變得更好—更不用說中國內部的人了。
幾十年來,我們的領袖一直無視,淡化勇敢的中國異見者的話,他們警告過我們所面對之政權。
我們不能再忽略它了。他們與任何人一樣知道我們永遠無法回到現狀。
但是改變中共的舉動並不單單是中國人民的使命。自由國家必須努力捍衛自由。這不是簡單的事情。
但是我有信心我們可以做到。我有信心,因為我們以前做過。我們知道這是怎麼回事。我有信心,因為中共正在重複蘇聯犯下的一些同樣的錯誤-疏遠潛在的盟友,破壞國內外的信任,拒絕財產權和法治。
我有信心。我之所以有信心,是因為我看到其他國家之間的覺醒,他們知道我們無法回到過去,美國亦如是。我從布魯塞爾,悉尼到河內都聽說過。
最重要的是,我相信我們可以捍衛自由,因為自由本身是漂亮的。
看看香港人因中共加強對這個驕傲城市的控制,要移居海外。他們揮舞著美國國旗。
是的,確實有差異。與蘇聯不同,中國已深入融入全球經濟。但是,北京對我們依賴,甚於我們依賴他們。 (掌聲)
瞧,我拒絕相信我們生活在一個不可避免中國的時代,某些陷阱(按:修昔底德陷阱)是預設的,中共至上是未來。我們的方法不是注定失敗的,因為美國正在衰落。正如我在今年早些時候在慕尼黑說的那樣,自由世界仍在勝利的一方。我們只需要相信它,就明白它並為此感到自豪。來自世界各地的人們仍然希望加入開放社會。他們來到這裡學習,來到這里工作,來到這里為家人謀生。他們並不想留在中國。
是時候了。今天很高興來到這裡。這是完美的時機。現在是自由國家採取行動的時候了。並非每個國家都將以同樣的方式對待中國,也不應該。每個國家都必須對如何保護自己的主權,如何保護自己的經濟繁榮以及如何保護自己的理想不受中國共產黨的觸碰而有所了解。
但是我呼籲每個國家的每一個領導人—如美國所先行的—簡單地堅持互惠,堅持中國共產黨的透明度和問責制。
這些簡單而強大的標準將取得很大的成就。太長時間了,我們讓中共制定交往條款,但不再這樣做。自由國家必須定下基調。
我們必須遵循相同的原則。我們必須在沙子上劃出共同的界線,而這不能被中共的討價還價或他們的野蠻沖走。確實,這就是美國最近所做的事情,因為我們一勞永逸地拒絕了中國在南中國海的非法主張,因為我們已敦促各國成為廉潔國家,以免其公民的私人信息落在手裡中國共產黨。我們通過制定標準來做到這一點。
現在,這確實很困難。對於一些小國家來說很難。他們害怕被人欺負。因此,其中一些人根本沒有能力,沒有勇氣暫時與我們站在一起。的確,我們與北約的盟友並未以其對香港的立場站起來,因為他們擔心北京會限制中國市場的准入。這種膽怯會導致歷史性的失敗,我們無法重複。
我們不能重複過去幾年的錯誤。中國面臨的挑戰要求民主國家發揮作用和精力,民主國家包括歐洲,非洲,南美,尤其是印度太平洋地區。
而且,如果我們現在不採取行動,那麼中共最終將侵蝕我們的自由,並顛覆我們的社會努力建立的基於法規的秩序。如果我們現在屈膝,我們孩子的孩子可能會受到中國共產黨的擺佈,中國共產黨的行動是當今自由世界中的主要挑戰。
習近平總書記註定不會永遠在中國內外施暴,除非我們允許
現在,這與圍堵無關。不要相信這策略。這是我們從未遇到過的複雜的新挑戰。蘇聯與自由世界隔絕了。共產主義中國已經在我們的邊界之內。
因此,我們不能獨自面對這一挑戰。聯合國,北約,七國集團國家,二十國集團,我們的經濟,外交和軍事力量合力,如果我們清楚明確地並勇往直前,無疑足以應付這一挑戰。
也許是時候讓志趣相投的國家組成一個新的團體,一個新的民主國家聯盟了。
我們有工具。我知道我們可以做到。現在我們需要意志。引用聖經經文,我問“要警醒禱告,免得陷入試探。你們心靈雖然願意,肉體卻是軟弱的。”
如果自由世界沒有改變 —沒有改變,共產主義中國一定會改變我們。無法因為舒適或便利而返回到過去的做法。
確保我們脫離中國共產黨的自由是我們這個時代的使命,而美國完全有能力領導它,
因為我們的建國原則為我們提供了這一機會。正如我上週在費城站立時所看到的那樣,注視著獨立廳,我們的國家建立在所有人類都擁有不可剝奪的某些權利的前提下。
確保這些權利是我們政府的工作。這是一個簡單而有力的真理。它使我們成為全世界人民的自由燈塔,包括中國境內的人。
確實,尼克遜在1967年寫道“除非中國改變,否則世界是不安全的”是正確的。現在我們該聽他的話了。
今天的危機已經明確了。
今天,覺醒正在發生。
今天,自由世界必須作出回應。
我們永遠無法回到過去。
願上帝保佑你們每個人。
願上帝保佑中國人民。'
願上帝保佑美利堅合眾國人民。
謝謝你們。(掌聲)
Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you, Governor, for that very, very generous introduction. It is true: When you walk in that gym and you say the name “Pompeo,” there is a whisper. I had a brother, Mark, who was really good – a really good basketball player.
And how about another round of applause for the Blue Eagles Honor Guard and Senior Airman Kayla Highsmith, and her wonderful rendition of the national anthem? (Applause.)
Thank you, too, to Pastor Laurie for that moving prayer, and I want to thank Hugh Hewitt and the Nixon Foundation for your invitation to speak at this important American institution. It was great to be sung to by an Air Force person, introduced by a Marine, and they let the Army guy in in front of the Navy guy’s house. (Laughter.) It’s all good.
It’s an honor to be here in Yorba Linda, where Nixon’s father built the house in which he was born and raised.
To all the Nixon Center board and staff who made today possible – it’s difficult in these times – thanks for making this day possible for me and for my team.
We are blessed to have some incredibly special people in the audience, including Chris, who I’ve gotten to know – Chris Nixon. I also want to thank Tricia Nixon and Julie Nixon Eisenhower for their support of this visit as well.
I want to recognize several courageous Chinese dissidents who have joined us here today and made a long trip.
And to all the other distinguished guests – (applause) – to all the other distinguished guests, thank you for being here. For those of you who got under the tent, you must have paid extra.
And those of you watching live, thank you for tuning in.
And finally, as the governor mentioned, I was born here in Santa Ana, not very far from here. I’ve got my sister and her husband in the audience today. Thank you all for coming out. I bet you never thought that I’d be standing up here.
My remarks today are the fourth set of remarks in a series of China speeches that I asked National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien, FBI Director Chris Wray, and the Attorney General Barr to deliver alongside me.
We had a very clear purpose, a real mission. It was to explain the different facets of America’s relationship with China, the massive imbalances in that relationship that have built up over decades, and the Chinese Communist Party’s designs for hegemony.
Our goal was to make clear that the threats to Americans that President Trump’s China policy aims to address are clear and our strategy for securing those freedoms established.
Ambassador O’Brien spoke about ideology. FBI Director Wray talked about espionage. Attorney General Barr spoke about economics. And now my goal today is to put it all together for the American people and detail what the China threat means for our economy, for our liberty, and indeed for the future of free democracies around the world.
Next year marks half a century since Dr. Kissinger’s secret mission to China, and the 50th anniversary of President Nixon’s trip isn’t too far away in 2022.
The world was much different then.
We imagined engagement with China would produce a future with bright promise of comity and cooperation.
But today – today we’re all still wearing masks and watching the pandemic’s body count rise because the CCP failed in its promises to the world. We’re reading every morning new headlines of repression in Hong Kong and in Xinjiang.
We’re seeing staggering statistics of Chinese trade abuses that cost American jobs and strike enormous blows to the economies all across America, including here in southern California. And we’re watching a Chinese military that grows stronger and stronger, and indeed more menacing.
I’ll echo the questions ringing in the hearts and minds of Americans from here in California to my home state of Kansas and beyond:
What do the American people have to show now 50 years on from engagement with China?
Did the theories of our leaders that proposed a Chinese evolution towards freedom and democracy prove to be true?
Is this China’s definition of a win-win situation?
And indeed, centrally, from the Secretary of State’s perspective, is America safer? Do we have a greater likelihood of peace for ourselves and peace for the generations which will follow us?
Look, we have to admit a hard truth. We must admit a hard truth that should guide us in the years and decades to come, that if we want to have a free 21st century, and not the Chinese century of which Xi Jinping dreams, the old paradigm of blind engagement with China simply won’t get it done. We must not continue it and we must not return to it.
As President Trump has made very clear, we need a strategy that protects the American economy, and indeed our way of life. The free world must triumph over this new tyranny.
Now, before I seem too eager to tear down President Nixon’s legacy, I want to be clear that he did what he believed was best for the American people at the time, and he may well have been right.
He was a brilliant student of China, a fierce cold warrior, and a tremendous admirer of the Chinese people, just as I think we all are.
He deserves enormous credit for realizing that China was too important to be ignored, even when the nation was weakened because of its own self-inflicted communist brutality.
In 1967, in a very famous Foreign Affairs article, Nixon explained his future strategy. Here’s what he said:
He said, “Taking the long view, we simply cannot afford to leave China forever outside of the family of nations…The world cannot be safe until China changes. Thus, our aim – to the extent we can, we must influence events. Our goal should be to induce change.”
And I think that’s the key phrase from the entire article: “to induce change.”
So, with that historic trip to Beijing, President Nixon kicked off our engagement strategy. He nobly sought a freer and safer world, and he hoped that the Chinese Communist Party would return that commitment.
As time went on, American policymakers increasingly presumed that as China became more prosperous, it would open up, it would become freer at home, and indeed present less of a threat abroad, it’d be friendlier. It all seemed, I am sure, so inevitable.
But that age of inevitability is over. The kind of engagement we have been pursuing has not brought the kind of change inside of China that President Nixon had hoped to induce.
The truth is that our policies – and those of other free nations – resurrected China’s failing economy, only to see Beijing bite the international hands that were feeding it.
We opened our arms to Chinese citizens, only to see the Chinese Communist Party exploit our free and open society. China sent propagandists into our press conferences, our research centers, our high-schools, our colleges, and even into our PTA meetings.
We marginalized our friends in Taiwan, which later blossomed into a vigorous democracy.
We gave the Chinese Communist Party and the regime itself special economic treatment, only to see the CCP insist on silence over its human rights abuses as the price of admission for Western companies entering China.
Ambassador O’Brien ticked off a few examples just the other day: Marriott, American Airlines, Delta, United all removed references to Taiwan from their corporate websites, so as not to anger Beijing.
In Hollywood, not too far from here – the epicenter of American creative freedom, and self-appointed arbiters of social justice – self-censors even the most mildly unfavorable reference to China.
This corporate acquiescence to the CCP happens all over the world, too.
And how has this corporate fealty worked? Is its flattery rewarded? I’ll give you a quote from the speech that General Barr gave, Attorney General Barr. In a speech last week, he said that “The ultimate ambition of China’s rulers isn’t to trade with the United States. It is to raid the United States.”
China ripped off our prized intellectual property and trade secrets, causing millions of jobs[1] all across America.
It sucked supply chains away from America, and then added a widget made of slave labor.
It made the world’s key waterways less safe for international commerce.
President Nixon once said he feared he had created a “Frankenstein” by opening the world to the CCP, and here we are.
Now, people of good faith can debate why free nations allowed these bad things to happen for all these years. Perhaps we were naive about China’s virulent strain of communism, or triumphalist after our victory in the Cold War, or cravenly capitalist, or hoodwinked by Beijing’s talk of a “peaceful rise.”
Whatever the reason – whatever the reason, today China is increasingly authoritarian at home, and more aggressive in its hostility to freedom everywhere else.
And President Trump has said: enough.
I don’t think many people on either side of the aisle dispute the facts that I have laid out today. But even now, some are insisting that we preserve the model of dialogue for dialogue’s sake.
Now, to be clear, we’ll keep on talking. But the conversations are different these days. I traveled to Honolulu now just a few weeks back to meet with Yang Jiechi.
It was the same old story – plenty of words, but literally no offer to change any of the behaviors.
Yang’s promises, like so many the CCP made before him, were empty. His expectations, I surmise, were that I’d cave to their demands, because frankly this is what too many prior administrations have done. I didn’t, and President Trump will not either.
As Ambassador O’Brien explained so well, we have to keep in mind that the CCP regime is a Marxist-Leninist regime. General Secretary Xi Jinping is a true believer in a bankrupt totalitarian ideology.
It’s this ideology, it’s this ideology that informs his decades-long desire for global hegemony of Chinese communism. America can no longer ignore the fundamental political and ideological differences between our countries, just as the CCP has never ignored them.
My experience in the House Intelligence Committee, and then as director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and my now two-plus years as America’s Secretary of State have led me to this central understanding:
That the only way – the only way to truly change communist China is to act not on the basis of what Chinese leaders say, but how they behave. And you can see American policy responding to this conclusion. President Reagan said that he dealt with the Soviet Union on the basis of “trust but verify.” When it comes to the CCP, I say we must distrust and verify. (Applause.)
We, the freedom-loving nations of the world, must induce China to change, just as President Nixon wanted. We must induce China to change in more creative and assertive ways, because Beijing’s actions threaten our people and our prosperity.
We must start by changing how our people and our partners perceive the Chinese Communist Party. We have to tell the truth. We can’t treat this incarnation of China as a normal country, just like any other.
We know that trading with China is not like trading with a normal, law-abiding nation. Beijing threatens international agreements as – treats international suggestions as – or agreements as suggestions, as conduits for global dominance.
But by insisting on fair terms, as our trade representative did when he secured our phase one trade deal, we can force China to reckon with its intellectual property theft and policies that harmed American workers.
We know too that doing business with a CCP-backed company is not the same as doing business with, say, a Canadian company. They don’t answer to independent boards, and many of them are state-sponsored and so have no need to pursue profits.
A good example is Huawei. We stopped pretending Huawei is an innocent telecommunications company that’s just showing up to make sure you can talk to your friends. We’ve called it what it is – a true national security threat – and we’ve taken action accordingly.
We know too that if our companies invest in China, they may wittingly or unwittingly support the Communist Party’s gross human rights violations.
Our Departments of Treasury and Commerce have thus sanctioned and blacklisted Chinese leaders and entities that are harming and abusing the most basic rights for people all across the world. Several agencies have worked together on a business advisory to make certain our CEOs are informed of how their supply chains are behaving inside of China.
We know too, we know too that not all Chinese students and employees are just normal students and workers that are coming here to make a little bit of money and to garner themselves some knowledge. Too many of them come here to steal our intellectual property and to take this back to their country.
The Department of Justice and other agencies have vigorously pursued punishment for these crimes.
We know that the People’s Liberation Army is not a normal army, too. Its purpose is to uphold the absolute rule of the Chinese Communist Party elites and expand a Chinese empire, not to protect the Chinese people.
And so our Department of Defense has ramped up its efforts, freedom of navigation operations out and throughout the East and South China Seas, and in the Taiwan Strait as well. And we’ve created a Space Force to help deter China from aggression on that final frontier.
And so too, frankly, we’ve built out a new set of policies at the State Department dealing with China, pushing President Trump’s goals for fairness and reciprocity, to rewrite the imbalances that have grown over decades.
Just this week, we announced the closure of the Chinese consulate in Houston because it was a hub of spying and intellectual property theft. (Applause.)
We reversed, two weeks ago, eight years of cheek-turning with respect to international law in the South China Sea.
We’ve called on China to conform its nuclear capabilities to the strategic realities of our time.
And the State Department – at every level, all across the world – has engaged with our Chinese counterparts simply to demand fairness and reciprocity.
But our approach can’t just be about getting tough. That’s unlikely to achieve the outcome that we desire. We must also engage and empower the Chinese people – a dynamic, freedom-loving people who are completely distinct from the Chinese Communist Party.
That begins with in-person diplomacy. (Applause.) I’ve met Chinese men and women of great talent and diligence wherever I go.
I’ve met with Uyghurs and ethnic Kazakhs who escaped Xinjiang’s concentration camps. I’ve talked with Hong Kong’s democracy leaders, from Cardinal Zen to Jimmy Lai. Two days ago in London, I met with Hong Kong freedom fighter Nathan Law.
And last month in my office, I heard the stories of Tiananmen Square survivors. One of them is here today.
Wang Dan was a key student who has never stopped fighting for freedom for the Chinese people. Mr. Wang, will you please stand so that we may recognize you? (Applause.)
Also with us today is the father of the Chinese democracy movement, Wei Jingsheng. He spent decades in Chinese labor camps for his advocacy. Mr. Wei, will you please stand? (Applause.)
I grew up and served my time in the Army during the Cold War. And if there is one thing I learned, communists almost always lie. The biggest lie that they tell is to think that they speak for 1.4 billion people who are surveilled, oppressed, and scared to speak out.
Quite the contrary. The CCP fears the Chinese people’s honest opinions more than any foe, and save for losing their own grip on power, they have reason – no reason to.
Just think how much better off the world would be – not to mention the people inside of China – if we had been able to hear from the doctors in Wuhan and they’d been allowed to raise the alarm about the outbreak of a new and novel virus.
For too many decades, our leaders have ignored, downplayed the words of brave Chinese dissidents who warned us about the nature of the regime we’re facing.
And we can’t ignore it any longer. They know as well as anyone that we can never go back to the status quo.
But changing the CCP’s behavior cannot be the mission of the Chinese people alone. Free nations have to work to defend freedom. It’s the furthest thing from easy.
But I have faith we can do it. I have faith because we’ve done it before. We know how this goes.
I have faith because the CCP is repeating some of the same mistakes that the Soviet Union made – alienating potential allies, breaking trust at home and abroad, rejecting property rights and predictable rule of law.
I have faith. I have faith because of the awakening I see among other nations that know we can’t go back to the past in the same way that we do here in America. I’ve heard this from Brussels, to Sydney, to Hanoi.
And most of all, I have faith we can defend freedom because of the sweet appeal of freedom itself.
Look at the Hong Kongers clamoring to emigrate abroad as the CCP tightens its grip on that proud city. They wave American flags.
It’s true, there are differences. Unlike the Soviet Union, China is deeply integrated into the global economy. But Beijing is more dependent on us than we are on them. (Applause.)
Look, I reject the notion that we’re living in an age of inevitability, that some trap is pre-ordained, that CCP supremacy is the future. Our approach isn’t destined to fail because America is in decline. As I said in Munich earlier this year, the free world is still winning. We just need to believe it and know it and be proud of it. People from all over the world still want to come to open societies. They come here to study, they come here to work, they come here to build a life for their families. They’re not desperate to settle in China.
It’s time. It’s great to be here today. The timing is perfect. It’s time for free nations to act. Not every nation will approach China in the same way, nor should they. Every nation will have to come to its own understanding of how to protect its own sovereignty, how to protect its own economic prosperity, and how to protect its ideals from the tentacles of the Chinese Communist Party.
But I call on every leader of every nation to start by doing what America has done – to simply insist on reciprocity, to insist on transparency and accountability from the Chinese Communist Party. It’s a cadre of rulers that are far from homogeneous.
And these simple and powerful standards will achieve a great deal. For too long we let the CCP set the terms of engagement, but no longer. Free nations must set the tone. We must operate on the same principles.
We have to draw common lines in the sand that cannot be washed away by the CCP’s bargains or their blandishments. Indeed, this is what the United States did recently when we rejected China’s unlawful claims in the South China Sea once and for all, as we have urged countries to become Clean Countries so that their citizens’ private information doesn’t end up in the hand of the Chinese Communist Party. We did it by setting standards.
Now, it’s true, it’s difficult. It’s difficult for some small countries. They fear being picked off. Some of them for that reason simply don’t have the ability, the courage to stand with us for the moment.
Indeed, we have a NATO ally of ours that hasn’t stood up in the way that it needs to with respect to Hong Kong because they fear Beijing will restrict access to China’s market. This is the kind of timidity that will lead to historic failure, and we can’t repeat it.
We cannot repeat the mistakes of these past years. The challenge of China demands exertion, energy from democracies – those in Europe, those in Africa, those in South America, and especially those in the Indo-Pacific region.
And if we don’t act now, ultimately the CCP will erode our freedoms and subvert the rules-based order that our societies have worked so hard to build. If we bend the knee now, our children’s children may be at the mercy of the Chinese Communist Party, whose actions are the primary challenge today in the free world.
General Secretary Xi is not destined to tyrannize inside and outside of China forever, unless we allow it.
Now, this isn’t about containment. Don’t buy that. It’s about a complex new challenge that we’ve never faced before. The USSR was closed off from the free world. Communist China is already within our borders.
So we can’t face this challenge alone. The United Nations, NATO, the G7 countries, the G20, our combined economic, diplomatic, and military power is surely enough to meet this challenge if we direct it clearly and with great courage.
Maybe it’s time for a new grouping of like-minded nations, a new alliance of democracies.
We have the tools. I know we can do it. Now we need the will. To quote scripture, I ask is “our spirit willing but our flesh weak?”
If the free world doesn’t change – doesn’t change, communist China will surely change us. There can’t be a return to the past practices because they’re comfortable or because they’re convenient.
Securing our freedoms from the Chinese Communist Party is the mission of our time, and America is perfectly positioned to lead it because our founding principles give us that opportunity.
As I explained in Philadelphia last week, standing, staring at Independence Hall, our nation was founded on the premise that all human beings possess certain rights that are unalienable.
And it’s our government’s job to secure those rights. It is a simple and powerful truth. It’s made us a beacon of freedom for people all around the world, including people inside of China.
Indeed, Richard Nixon was right when he wrote in 1967 that “the world cannot be safe until China changes.” Now it’s up to us to heed his words.
Today the danger is clear.
And today the awakening is happening.
Today the free world must respond.
We can never go back to the past.
May God bless each of you.
May God bless the Chinese people.
And may God bless the people of the United States of America.
Thank you all.
(Applause.)
同時也有10000部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過2,910的網紅コバにゃんチャンネル,也在其Youtube影片中提到,...
「human needs in economics」的推薦目錄:
human needs in economics 在 初夏的東港之櫻 Facebook 的最佳解答
那個南方叫屏東
屏東的黑鮪魚好ㄘ(〃∀〃)
【2016,這就是台灣人想要的總統!】
「妳回北京以後,告訴他們,」蔡英文說:「台灣的下一任總統曾經為妳服務過。」
(“Go back to Beijing,” says Tsai, “and tell them you were served by the next President of Taiwan.”)
上面那段話,是這幾天來,最讓我感佩與震撼的一段話。那是蔡英文主席接受《TIME》雜誌專訪長文的結語,鏗鏘有力,也讓人無比動容...
2016,我希望我能有幸擁有這樣的總統,一股溫柔的力量,卻又充滿自信與霸氣,不慍不火、不卑不亢,而這正是台灣這個即將新生的島國,用來在世界永續立足,最需要的態度。
朋友們告訴我,昨天附上的《TIME》雜誌英漢對照翻譯文章,已經被下架了。對此,我真的感到非常遺憾。(更新消息:PTT貼文者並非原譯,因恐引起誤會而刪文。原譯文出自獨立記者Jessie Chen臉書,特此致謝。)
對於那篇連夜趕出的翻譯稿,也許不同立場的朋友,會有不同想法與批評。但對於譯者的熱心與用心,我只有發自內心的感激和敬佩。因此,我在網路上找到備份文章,再一次(無修改)分享給我的朋友們,需要的,就幫忙再傳播出去吧!
德不孤必有鄰,一位擅長漫畫的朋友,也默默傳了她關於那段「溫柔力量」談話的圖像詮釋。淡淡的畫風,彷彿原景重現,對我而言,那份感動,似乎又更深了一些...
有人以文字速譯向小英致敬、有人以圖像速寫向小英致敬──
而我,只能藉此臉書一角,向翻譯者、漫畫家,跟小英總統本人,獻上最誠心的祝福與感謝!
謝謝你們,讓台灣變成一個更好更美的地方。
──────────底下為英漢對照翻譯原文──────────
民進黨主席暨總統參選人蔡英文登上最新一期時代雜誌封面,標題是「她將可能領導華人世界唯一民主國家, She Could Lead The Only Chinese Democracy」。蔡主席是繼印度總理莫迪、印尼總統佐科威、韓國總統朴槿惠後,最新一位登上時代雜誌封面的亞洲領導人。
中英譯全文:
雜誌封面
She Could Lead the Only Chinese Democracy
And that makes Beijing nervous
她將可能領導華人世界唯一的民主國家
這讓北京感到緊張
目錄頁
Cover Story: Championing Taiwan
Presidential front runner Tsai Ing-wen wants to put the island’s interests first
封面故事:壯大台灣
總統大選領先者蔡英文要將台灣利益置於優先
內頁大標
‘The Next President Of Taiwan’
That’s how Tsai Ing-wen refers to herself. But will the island’s voters agree?
台灣的下一任總統
蔡英文是這樣認為。但是這座島嶼的選民會同意嗎?
內文
Emily Rauhala / 台北報導 Adam Ferguson / 攝影
Tsai Ing-wen is making breakfast. The presidential candidate cracks five eggs and lets them bubble with bacon in the pan. She stacks slices of thick, white toast. It’s a recipe adapted from British chef Jamie Oliver, but the ingredients, she can’t help but say, are pure Taiwan. The meat comes courtesy of Happy Pig, a farm near her spare but tasteful Taipei apartment, the bread from a neighborhood bakery. She offers me an orange. “Organic,” she says, in English. “And local, of course.”
蔡英文正在做早餐。這位總統候選人打了五個蛋,和著平底鍋裡面的培根一起吱吱作響,再把一片片白色的厚片土司疊起來。料理手法學自英國名廚傑米奧利佛(Jamie Oliver),但是她忍不住要說,烹調食材屬於最純粹的台灣原料。培根來自「快樂豬」農場,距離她那簡單卻有品味的公寓不遠,而麵包是從她家附近的烘培坊買來的。她遞了一顆橘子給我,用英文跟我說:「有機的!當然也是在地的。」
This is not an average breakfast for the 58-year-old lawyer turned politician running to become Taiwan’s next President—most days she grabs a coffee and books it to the car. But it is, in many ways, oh so Tsai. The Taipei-raised, U.S.- and U.K.-educated former negotiator wrote her doctoral thesis on international trade law. As a minister, party chair and presidential candidate (she narrowly lost to two-term incumbent Ma Ying-jeou in the 2012 race), Tsai gained a reputation for being wonky—the type who likes to debate protectionism over early-morning sips of black coffee or oolong tea.
對於這位58歲、從律師轉變成政治人物的總統候選人來說,這可不是她平常吃的早餐。她通常隨手抓一杯咖啡在車上喝。不過許多方面來說,這應該可以算是一貫的「蔡式」風格。這位在臺北長大、在英美留學過的談判專家,博士論文寫的是國際貿易法。在她當陸委 會主委、民進黨主席、總統候選人期間(她在2012年的總統大選中以些微差距輸給了馬英九總統),得到學院派的風評──她是那種喜歡在早上喝黑咖啡或烏龍茶時,跟你辯論保護主義的人。
Now, as the early front runner in Taiwan’s January 2016 presidential election, her vision for the island is proudly, defiantly, Taiwan-centric. Tsai says she would maintain the political status quo across the strait with China—essentially, both Taipei and Beijing agreeing to disagree as to which represents the one, true China, leaving the question of the island’s fate to the future. But Tsai wants to put Taiwan’s economy, development and culture first. While Ma and his government have pushed for new trade and tourism pacts with Beijing—China accounts for some 40% of Taiwan’s exports—Tsai aims to lessen the island’s dependence on the mainland by building global ties and championing local brands. “Taiwan needs a new model, ” she tells TIME.
現在,身為在2016年台灣總統大選中的領先者,蔡英文的願景充滿自信又堅定地強調以台灣為核心。蔡英文說她會維持兩岸的現狀──這指的是說臺北與北京彼此同意對於何者代表中國保留不同的認知(註明:這是時代雜誌記者的見解),並且把這個島嶼的命運留給未來決定。但,蔡英文想要將台灣的經濟、發展與文化置於首位。當馬英九和他的政府推動與中國的貿易及觀光協議時(中國占台灣出口的百分之四十),蔡英文希望加強與世界連結、扶植台灣品牌,以降低台灣對中國的依賴。她對時代雜誌說:「台灣需要一個新模式」。
Whether voters share her vision is a question that matters beyond Taipei. Taiwan is tiny, with a population of only 23 million, but its economy—powered by electronics, agriculture and tourism—ranks about mid-20s in the world by GDP size, with a GDP per capita about thrice that of China’s. Ceded by China’s Qing dynasty to Japan after the 1894–95 First Sino-Japanese War, colonized by Tokyo for half a century, then seized by Nationalist forces fleeing the Communists at the end of the Chinese civil war, Taiwan has long been a pawn in a regional great game. It is a linchpin for the U.S. in East Asia alongside Japan, South Korea and the Philippines, and, most important, it’s the only real democracy in the Chinese-speaking world.
“This election matters because it’s a window into democracy rooted in Chinese tradition,” says Lung Ying-tai, an author and social commentator who recently stepped down as Culture Minister. “Because of Taiwan, the world is able to envision a different China.”
台灣的選民是否同意她的願景,是一件擴及台北以外的事情。台灣的土地雖小,只有兩千三百萬的人口,但是經濟因電子業,農業以及觀光業的支,以國內生產毛額來說在世界排名第二十幾名。台灣的國內人均產值則是中國的三倍。台灣在1894-95的中日戰爭被中國清朝割讓後,被日本殖民了半個世紀;之後在中國內戰結束時逃避共產黨的國民黨勢力給佔領。長期以來台灣是區域競爭中的一個棋子。在美國的東亞布局中,台灣、日本、南韓及菲律賓同為最關鍵的環節。更重要的是,台灣是在華語世界中唯一一個真正的民主國家。甫卸任文化部長的作者與社會評論員龍應台表示:「這場選舉很重要,因為它提供了一個窗口,讓外界一探以中華文化為根基的民主……因為台灣,世界得以想像一個不一樣的中國。」
Taiwan’s politics irritate and befuddle Beijing. To the ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP), Taiwan is the province that got away, a living, breathing, voting reminder of what could happen to China if the CCP loosens its grip on its periphery, from Tibet to Xinjiang to Hong Kong. Beijing is particularly wary of a change in government from Ma’s relatively China-friendly Kuomintang (KMT) to Tsai’s firmly China-skeptic Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). When Tsai ran for President in 2012, Beijing blasted her, without actually naming her, as a “troublemaker” and “splittist”—CCP-speak reserved for Dalai Lama–level foes. “A DPP government means uncertainty for cross-strait ties,” says Lin Gang, a Taiwan specialist at Shanghai Jiao Tong University’s School of International and Public Affairs.
台灣的政治讓北京感到惱怒又百思不解。對中國共產黨來說,台灣是一個逃走的省,也是對中國活生生的提醒──若中國鬆懈對於香港、西藏及新疆等非核心地區的掌控時,可能會發生的事。北京對於台灣的政權,由對中國相對友善的馬政府輪替到對中國保持疑慮的民進黨,抱持格外戒慎的態度。蔡英文在2012年參選總統的時候,北京雖然沒有指名道姓,卻明顯對她大肆抨擊,說她是一個「麻煩製造者」或「分裂主義者」——在共產黨的術語中,這些話專門達賴喇嘛這一層級的仇敵。任教於上海交通大學國際與公共關係學院的台灣事務專家林岡說:「民進黨政府代表的是兩岸關係的不確定性。」
To the U.S., which is bound by the Taiwan Relations Act to come to the island’ s aid if it’s attacked, Taiwan is a longtime friend and unofficial ally, though the strength of that friendship is being tested by China’s rise. Washington worries that Taiwan’s people, especially its youth, are growing warier of China, and that any conflict between the two might draw in the U.S.
“What this election has done is crystallize the changes, the shift in public opinion,” says Shelley Rigger, a Taiwan scholar at Davidson College in North Carolina and the author of Why Taiwan Matters. “I don’t think cross-strait relations are going to be easy going forward, and that’s not something U.S. policymakers want to hear.”
對美國來說,根據《台灣關係法》,在台灣受到武力攻擊的情況下,須協防台灣。台灣是美國長期友邦和非正式盟國,儘管兩國之間友誼的強度正受到中國崛起的考驗。華府擔心台灣人民,特別是年輕人,對於中國的警戒心逐漸提高,而兩者之間的衝突可能會把美國牽扯進來。著有《台灣為何重要》(Why Taiwan Matters)一書的美國北卡羅來那州戴維森大學(Davidson College)教授任雪麗(Shelley Rigger)說:「這場選舉讓所有的改變具體化,反映出民意板塊的移動……我不認為接下來的兩岸關係會更融洽,而這不是美國的政策制定者想要聽到的東西。」
The KMT has yet to formally nominate a candidate for the top job, but the favorite is Hung Hsiu-chu, the legislature’s female deputy speaker. Nicknamed ”little hot pepper” because of her diminutive stature and feisty manner, Hung, 67, would be a contrast to the more professorial Tsai should she get the KMT’s nod. “I don’t think [Tsai] is a strong opponent,” Hung tells TIME. Yet the DPP’s choice, who has already started pressing the flesh islandwide, is spirited too. “People have this vision of me as a conservative person, but I’m actually quite adventurous,” she says. And possessed of a sharp sense of humor—when I compliment her cooking, Tsai looks at me with mock exasperation: “I have a Ph.D., you know.”
國民黨雖然還未正式提名總統候選人,但目前最被看好的就是立法院副院長洪秀柱。因為身材嬌小與好戰性格而被封為「小辣椒」的洪秀柱(67歲),如果獲黨的提名,將與擁有學者形象的蔡英文,呈現顯著的對比。洪秀柱向時代記者表示:「我不認為蔡英文是一位強的對手」。然而,民進黨的候選人已經士氣高昂,在全台各地展開競選活動。蔡英文說:「有些人認為我是一個保守的人,但我其實是很愛冒險的」。她有一種犀利的幽默感──當我讚美她的廚藝時,她用搞笑的語氣假裝惱怒說:「我可是擁有博士學位的。」
Tsai grew up in a home on Taipei’s Zhongshan Road North, a street named after Taiwan’s symbolic father, Sun Yat-sen, the Chinese revolutionary who helped overthrow the Qing and co-founded the KMT. Her own father, an auto mechanic turned property developer, was of the Confucian kind: he encouraged her to study hard but also expected her, as the youngest daughter, to devote herself to his care. “I was not considered a kid that would be successful in my career,” says Tsai.
蔡英文在台北的中山北路長大,這條街是以革命推翻清朝、成立國民黨並視為國父的孫逸仙命名。她的父親是一位修車技師,後來成為土地開發商。他承襲了儒家思想,希望蔡英文要用功讀書,但也期許身為小女兒的蔡英文可以留在父親身邊照顧他。蔡英文說:「我小時候不是一個被認為未來會有成就的孩子。」
After attending university in Taiwan, she studied law at Cornell in New York because, she says, it seemed the place for a young woman who “wanted to have a revolutionary life.” From there she went to the London School of Economics, where she earned her Ph.D., also in law, in less than three years. “That pleased my father,” she says. When he called her home, she obliged, returning to Taiwan to teach and, in 1994, to enter government in a series of high- profile but mostly policy-oriented roles in the Fair Trade Commission, National Security Council and Mainland Affairs Council.
在台灣大學畢業後,她前往紐約州康乃爾大學研讀法律,因為她說,這是一個「想過革命性的生活」的年輕女子該去的地方。之後,她前往倫敦政治經濟學院攻讀法學博士,並且三年不到就獲得學位。她說:「這讓我父親很高興」。她遵從父親的意思返回台灣,先回大學教書並在1994年進入政府,出任公平交易委員會、國安會及陸委會等一系列重要的、政策導向的職位。
Even close supporters say Tsai was, and perhaps still is, an unlikely politician, especially for the DPP. Taiwan’s opposition party was forged in struggle and led by veterans of the democracy movement—a fight Tsai mostly missed. The Kaohsiung Incident in 1979—a human-rights rally that was violently broken up by security forces, galvanizing the democracy movement— took place while Tsai was overseas, cocooned in the ivory tower. If the archetypal DPP operative is a bare-knuckle street fighter, Tsai is an Olympic fencer—restrained and precise.
就連許多親近蔡英文的支持者都認為,蔡英文是一位非典型的政治人物,特別就民進黨而言。身為在野黨的民進黨,在台灣民主運動的奮鬥過程中焠煉而成,由民主運動的老兵所成立,這是一場蔡英文錯過的戰役。1979年高雄的美麗島事件,當一場人權遊行遭警政單位暴力驅散,而後來激勵了台灣的民主運動,蔡英文當時正在國外求學,受到象牙塔的庇護。若說民進黨的典型人物是赤手空拳的街頭鬥士,蔡英文則是一位奧林匹克級的劍術家:自我克制又精確到位。
She stepped into the spotlight in 2008, becoming party chair when the DPP found itself booted from office, with its chief Chen Shui-bian, the outgoing President, later convicted of corruption. While she possessed a deep knowledge of policy, Tsai did not then seem like a leader. “She used to sort of hide behind me when we went door to door,” recalls legislator Hsiao Bi-khim, a longtime colleague and friend. “People compared her to a lost bunny in the forest, with wolves surrounding, both from within the party and outside.
在2008年民進黨失去政權,而前總統陳水扁隨即遭貪汙罪起訴的時刻,蔡英文踏入了鎂光燈下,成為民進黨主席。雖然蔡英文對於政策擁有深度的瞭解,但當時她還不像一位領導人。長期以來是她同事與朋友的立法委員蕭美琴說「以前當我們挨家挨戶去拜訪時,她有點會躲在我身後」。「有些形容她為一個在森林裡迷路的兔子,被黨內與黨外的狼群包圍。」
After an unsuccessful 2010 mayoral bid, Tsai ran for, and also lost, the presidency in 2012. Jason Liu, a veteran DPP speechwriter, says now that the campaign did not “sell” Tsai well enough. The ideas were strong, but the delivery left “distance between her and the voters.” Ironically, it was not until her concession speech that Tsai seemed to connect emotionally with Taiwan’s citizens. “You may cry,” she told the tearful crowd. “But don’t lose heart.”
2010年,蔡英文參與市長選舉失利,在2012年也沒順利當選總統。民進黨資深文膽劉建忻表示,當時的競選總部對於「行銷」蔡英文這個概念,做得不夠好;雖然擁有許多好點子,但是執行上還是「讓選民感到有所距離」。諷刺地,一直到敗選感言,蔡英文才似乎與台灣人民產生情感上的連結。她對含著淚水的群眾表示:「你可以哭泣,但不能洩氣。」
A lot has changed since 2012. Eleven hours after making eggs, with a policy meeting, a cross-country train ride and a harbor tour behind her, Tsai is addressing a couple hundred students at a university in the southern city of Kaohsiung, a DPP stronghold. She’s in lecture mode, at ease, talking about her party’s economic plans: stronger regional links and a focus on innovation to support small businesses. “How many of you went to Taipei for the Sunflower protests?” she asks in Mandarin. At least a third raise their hands.
2012年之後的台灣,歷經了許多改變。蔡英文煎蛋後的11個小時後,歷經了一場政策會議、搭乘高鐵從北一路向南、緊接著進行高雄碼頭導覽。她抵達南台灣民進黨的重鎮高雄,向數百位大學生發表演說。她以一派輕鬆的授課模式,闡述著民進黨的經濟計畫:加強區域間的連結,並聚焦於支持創新的小型經濟。她用中文詢問在場學生「你們之中有多少人去台北參加過太陽花學運?」現場至少有三分之一的學生舉起了手。
Taiwan’s students were once seen as apathetic. But during spring last year, Taipei was swept up by thousands-strong demonstrations over a services pact with China. Student and civic groups worried that the deal could hurt Taiwan’s economy and leave it vulnerable to pressure from Beijing. They felt it was pushed through without adequate public scrutiny. The Sunflower Movement, as it came to be called after a florist donated bundles of the blooms, grew into a grassroots revolt, culminating in the March 18 storming of the legislature.
台灣的學生過去一度被視為相當冷漠。但是在去年的春天,台北市被數以千計的抗議者淹沒,反對與中國簽訂的服務貿易協議。學生與公民團體擔憂這個協議會傷害台灣經濟,讓台灣的經濟受制於中國壓力而變得脆弱。他們也認為,服貿協議的推動並沒有經過適當的公民審議。太陽花運動是民間累積的抗爭與不滿,在3月18日這天一舉衝進立法院,運動的稱號是由於抗爭期間一位花販捐贈了大量太陽花而因此命名。
The movement was grounded in questions of social justice. Since coming to power in 2008, Ma has argued that cross-strait commerce is the key to the island’s fortunes, signing 21 trade deals. Yet young people in particular wonder if the deals benefit only Big Business on both sides of the strait. They say rapprochement with Beijing has left them none the richer, and agonize over the high cost of housing, flat wages and the possibility of local jobs going to China. A sign during a protest outside the Presidential Palace on March 30 last year captured the mood: “We don’t have another Taiwan to sell.”
這個運動的主要訴求就是社會正義。自從國民黨2008年執政以來,簽訂了21個兩岸貿易協定,馬英九主張兩岸的商業往來是台灣最關鍵的財富來源。但是年輕人質疑這項論述,他們認為這些貿易協議只有兩岸的大財團獲利。他們說北京的和解政策並沒有讓年輕人變得富有,反而讓他們受困於高房價、停滯的薪資、以及在地工作機會可能流失到中國的可能性。在去年3月30日於總統府外的抗議中,有個標語最能捕捉整體的社會氛圍:「台灣只有一個,賣了就沒了!」
The emphasis on quality of life, and not just macro-indicators, is good news for Tsai. Her vision for a more economically independent Taiwan did not sway the electorate in 2012 but may now have stronger appeal. The KMT, bruised by the Sunflower protests and then battered by fed-up voters in midterm polls last fall, is trying to remake itself as a more populist party. Timothy Yang, a former Foreign Minister who is now vice president of the National Policy Foundation, the KMT’s think tank, says the party stands by its cross-strait record. But even Yang, a KMT stalwart, is keen to address the issue of equity:
“The benefits of this interaction with mainland China should be shared with the general public.”
台灣社會對於生活品質的重視,而非僅僅強調宏觀經濟指標,對蔡英文來說是件好事。她希望打造一個經濟上更加獨立的台灣,雖然這個理念在2012年並沒有說動選民,但,現在可能更有吸引力。國民黨在太陽花運動中受到重創,在去年秋天的期中選舉中又再度被選民以選票教訓。現在,國民黨試圖把自己再造成一個民粹的政黨。目前擔任國民黨智庫『國家政策基金會』副董事長的前外交部長楊進添先生受訪時說道,「國民黨堅持其兩岸的立場」。但即便像楊進添這樣堅定的國民黨員,也熱衷於解決公平的議題。他說:「兩岸互動的利益,應該要與全民共享!」
Tsai should easily carry traditional DPP support: much of the south, the youth vote, and those who identify as Taiwanese and who are not a part of the elite that came from China after the CCP victory in 1949. The DPP’s missing link is Big Business, which supports the KMT and closer ties with the mainland, where many Taiwan companies are invested. Tsai recognizes that this is a constituency she needs to woo but doesn’t seem clear as to how, beyond saying, “Our challenge is to produce something that is sensible to both sides without being considered as a traitor to the friends we used to be with when we were an opposition party.”
蔡英文要得到傳統民進黨的支持並不難,例如南部選民、年輕選票、還有那些認同自己是台灣人,而不是1949年中國共產黨勝利後來自中國的精英份子。然而,民進黨缺乏與大企業的連結,因為台灣企業大量投資大陸,而其中這些大財團多半支持國民黨,以及與大陸建立更緊密的關係。蔡英文也理解到這是她必須要去吸引的一群選民,但是對於如何進行並沒有太清楚的圖像。她說:「我們的挑戰是要去創造雙方都認為合理的立場,又不能被我們在野時的朋友認為是叛徒。」
That will be hard. The KMT has long argued that it, not the DPP, is best qualified to run the economy, which, corruption apart, did not do well under Chen. Tsai’s supporters concede that many citizens feel the same way—that the DPP can be an effective opposition but not administration. “The KMT has always portrayed itself as more suited to guide the economy,” says J. Michael Cole, a Taipei-based senior fellow with the University of Nottingham’s China Policy Institute and a senior officer at Tsai’s Thinking Taiwan Foundation. “There’s this stubborn perception that a DPP government would be bad for business.”
這是困難的挑戰。國民黨長期主張自己比民進黨更擅長治理經濟,尤其陳水扁執政時期除了貪污,經濟表現並不好。蔡英文的支持者也同意,確實有些民眾認為民進黨可是一個稱職的反對黨,但不是執政黨。諾丁漢大學中國政策研究中心資深研究員暨小英基金會資深主管寇謐將(J. Michael Cole)說:「國民黨把自己描繪是一個更適合主導經濟的政黨。另外也有一種僵化的刻版印象,認為民進黨執政對企業不利。」
It’s a narrative that the CCP backs and may well float as the campaign progresses, either directly, in China’s state-controlled press, or indirectly, through, for instance, its connections in Taiwan’s business community. “Beijing is going to want to make a point through all sorts of channels, including Big Business, that cross-strait relations will not be as smooth if you vote a government into power that has not accepted the foundation that has underpinned developments of the last eight years,” says Alan Romberg, a distinguished fellow at the Stimson Center, a Washington, D.C., think tank.
這種論調受到中國共產黨的支持,並且今隨著選戰的進展不斷被拋出。共產黨可能直接地利用中國控制的媒體影響選舉,或是間接地透過中國與台灣商業界的連結。美國華府智庫史汀森研究中心(Stimson Center)資深學者容安瀾(Alan Romberg)說:「北京將會透過大企業等各種管道來闡述其立場,表明要是台灣人民讓一個不接受過去八年兩岸發展基
礎的政府執政,兩岸關係的發展將不會如現在一樣平順。」
Beijing has never been receptive to a DPP government, but it is particularly negative now. Since coming to power in 2012, China’s leader Xi Jinping has proved himself to be more assertive and nationalistic than most expected, a man not eager to compromise. Last September he told a delegation from the island that China and Taiwan might be one day be reunited under Hong Kong’s “one country, two systems” formula, which is rejected by both the KMT and DPP and, surveys consistently show, the vast majority of Taiwan’s people. This May, Xi warned again about the danger of “separatist forces”—a comment widely interpreted as a swipe at the DPP.
北京對於民進黨政權的接受度向來不高,但現在尤其抱持負面的態度。中國領導人習近平在2012年掌權後,證明自己比外界想像的還更加武斷,帶有更強烈的民族主義色彩,是一個不輕易妥協的人。去年九月,他對一個來自台灣的代表團說,中國和台灣可望採用香港「一國兩制」的模式統一,然而這卻是一個國民黨和民進黨都反對的方案,而且民調也一再顯示,絕大多數的台灣人民無法接受。今年五月,習近平再度警告「分裂主義勢力」會帶來的危險──這段說詞普遍被外界詮釋為對民進黨的抨擊。
Cross-strait relations are managed according to the so-called 1992 Consensus reached by Beijing and Taipei (then also governed by the KMT), a formula the KMT’s Yang calls “a masterpiece of ambiguity.” Under the 1992 Consensus, both sides acknowledge that there is only one China, but without specifying what exactly that means. This, Yang says, has allowed the KMT to move forward on bilateral trade, transport and tourism without being forced to address whether “one China” is the China imagined by Beijing or by Taipei.
兩岸關係是治理目前根據北京和台北(當時為國民黨執政)之間所謂的九二共識,這是一個被國民黨的楊進添形容為「模糊性的一大鉅作」的政策。根據九二共識,雙方承認只有一個中國,但不表明一個中國的確切意含。楊進添說,這讓國民黨在推展雙邊貿易、交通和觀光方面得以取得進展,而不需被迫去回答「一個中國」究竟是北京或是台北心目中的中國。
The DPP has long promoted de jure independence. The first clause in its charter calls for “the establishment of an independent sovereignty known as the Republic of Taiwan,” not the Republic of China, Taiwan’s official name. This platform resonates with the DPP base but is increasingly untenable given China’s economic clout and growing power on the world stage. While the first DPP presidency under Chen was hardly a break from the past, it did see a cooling with Beijing. Things warmed again under Ma. Lin, the Taiwan expert at Shanghai Jiao Tong University, says Tsai is somewhere between Chen and Ma: “If she wins the election, she will not pursue Taiwan in dependence. But she will not promote the development of the cross-strait relationship as Ma Ying-jeou did.”
民進黨過去長期以來推動台灣的法理獨立。民進黨黨綱第一條闡明「建立主權獨立自主的台灣共和國」,而非台灣的正式國號中華民國。這個立場獲得民進黨基本盤的認同,卻在中國的經濟實力成長與中國在世界舞台上崛起之下,越來越無法實現。儘管陳水扁主政時期的民進黨政府跟過去的政策並無太大差別,但跟北京的關係確實趨向冷淡。馬英九主政時期兩岸關係再度暖化。上海交通大學的台灣專家林岡說,蔡英文的立場介於馬英九和陳水扁之間。他說:「如果她勝選,她不會追求台灣獨立。但她也不會像馬英九一樣推動兩岸關係的發展。」
Tsai stresses that she will not alter the politics between Taiwan and China, but she is vague about whether she will repeal the DPP’s independence clause. And unification? That, she says, “is something you have to resolve democratically—it is a decision to be made by the people here.”
蔡英文強調她不會改變台灣和中國之間的政治關係,但對於是否撤回台獨條文卻是依然維持模糊。至於統一呢?她說:「那是必須經由民主程序解決的事情——這是一個必須經由此地的人民來做的決定。」
Hung, Tsai’s potential KMT opponent, says the DPP flag bearer needs to clarify her stance on cross-strait relations. “People ask her, ‘What is the status quo?’ and she can’t say anything specific,” says Hung. The KMT’s Yang offers a metaphor: “Before you harvest, you have to plow the land, transplant the seedlings, fertilize; all the work … has been done by the KMT, and yet they are going to harvest the crop?”
蔡英文的在對手洪秀柱說,民進黨的掌舵手需要清楚地闡明她對兩岸關係的立場。洪秀柱說:「大家問她『維持現狀是什麼意思?』,她卻沒有給具體的回應。」國民黨的楊進添用一個比喻:「在收割之前,要先耕地、播種、施肥;所有的工作……都已經被國民黨完成了,然而他們現在卻想要收割?」
Tsai believes she will win that right. Several days before I return to my Beijing base, over Taiwan-Japanese fusion in Kaohsiung, Tsai is quietly confident that she will gain the trust of Taiwan’s voters and secure victory, whatever Beijing might think. She puts a final piece of tuna on my plate. It’ s from Pingtung County in the south, where she was born. “Go back to Beijing,” says Tsai, “and tell them you were served by the next President of Taiwan.”
蔡英文相信她會贏得這項權利。在我返回北京駐點的前幾天,我們在一家位於高雄的台式日本料理小店用餐,蔡英文對於取得台灣選民的信任並贏得選戰,展現出低調的自信。當時,她把最後一片鮪魚夾到我的盤子上。那塊鮪魚來自南方的屏東,她的出生地。「妳回北京以後,告訴他們,」蔡英文說:「台灣的下一任總統曾經為妳服務過。」
—With reporting by Zoher Abdoolcarim, Gladys Tsai and Natalie Tso/Taipei
─────────────────────
圖片:猜猜看,認出畫風了嗎?^^
(歡迎任何形式分享,一律免問)
human needs in economics 在 杜文卿 Facebook 的最佳解答
「她將可能領導華人世界唯一民主國家, She Could Lead The Only Chinese Democracy」。
民進黨主席暨總統參選人蔡英文登上最新一期時代雜誌封面,蔡主席是繼印度總理莫迪、印尼總統佐科威、韓國總統朴槿惠後,最新一位登上時代雜誌封面的亞洲領導人。
中英譯全文:
[雜誌封面]
She Could Lead the Only Chinese Democracy
And that makes Beijing nervous
她將可能領導華人世界唯一的民主國家
這讓北京感到緊張
[目錄頁]
Cover Story: Championing Taiwan
Presidential front runner Tsai Ing-wen wants to put the island’s interests first
封面故事:壯大台灣
總統大選領先者蔡英文要將台灣利益置於優先
[內頁大標]
‘The Next President Of Taiwan’
That’s how Tsai Ing-wen refers to herself. But will the island’s voters agree?
台灣的下一任總統
蔡英文是這樣認為。但是這座島嶼的選民會同意嗎?
[內文]
Emily Rauhala / 台北報導 Adam Ferguson / 攝影
Tsai Ing-wen is making breakfast. The presidential candidate cracks five eggs and lets them bubble with bacon in the pan. She stacks slices of thick, white toast. It’s a recipe adapted from British chef Jamie Oliver, but the ingredients, she can’t help but say, are pure Taiwan. The meat comes courtesy of Happy Pig, a farm near her spare but tasteful Taipei apartment, the bread from a neighborhood bakery. She offers me an orange. “Organic,” she says, in English. “And local, of course.”
蔡英文正在做早餐。這位總統候選人打了五個蛋,和著平底鍋裡面的培根一起吱吱作響,再把一片片白色的厚片土司疊起來。料理手法學自英國名廚傑米奧利佛(Jamie Oliver),但是她忍不住要說,烹調食材屬於最純粹的台灣原料。培根來自「快樂豬」農場,距離她那簡單卻有品味的公寓不遠,而麵包是從她家附近的烘培坊買來的。她遞了一顆橘子給我,用英文跟我說:「有機的!當然也是在地的。」
This is not an average breakfast for the 58-year-old lawyer turned politician running to become Taiwan’s next President—most days she grabs a coffee and books it to the car. But it is, in many ways, oh so Tsai. The Taipei-raised, U.S.- and U.K.-educated former negotiator wrote her doctoral thesis on international trade law. As a minister, party chair and presidential candidate (she narrowly lost to two-term incumbent Ma Ying-jeou in the 2012 race), Tsai gained a reputation for being wonky—the type who likes to debate protectionism over early-morning sips of black coffee or oolong tea.
對於這位58歲、從律師轉變成政治人物的總統候選人來說,這可不是她平常吃的早餐。她通常隨手抓一杯咖啡在車上喝。不過許多方面來說,這應該可以算是一貫的「蔡式」風格。這位在臺北長大、在英美留學過的談判專家,博士論文寫的是國際貿易法。在她當陸委會主委、民進黨主席、總統候選人期間(她在2012年的總統大選中以些微差距輸給了馬英九總統),得到學院派的風評──她是那種喜歡在早上喝黑咖啡或烏龍茶時,跟你辯論保護主義的人。
Now, as the early front runner in Taiwan’s January 2016 presidential election, her vision for the island is proudly, defiantly, Taiwan-centric. Tsai says she would maintain the political status quo across the strait with China—essentially, both Taipei and Beijing agreeing to disagree as to which represents the one, true China, leaving the question of the island’s fate to the future. But Tsai wants to put Taiwan’s economy, development and culture first. While Ma and his government have pushed for new trade and tourism pacts with Beijing—China accounts for some 40% of Taiwan’s exports—Tsai aims to lessen the island’s dependence on the mainland by building global ties and championing local brands. “Taiwan needs a new model,” she tells TIME.
現在,身為在2016年台灣總統大選中的領先者,蔡英文的願景充滿自信又堅定地強調以台灣為核心。蔡英文說她會維持兩岸的現狀──這指的是說臺北與北京彼此同意對於何者代表中國保留不同的認知[註明:這是時代雜誌記者的見解],並且把這個島嶼的命運留給未來決定。但,蔡英文想要將台灣的經濟、發展與文化置於首位。當馬英九和他的政府推動與中國的貿易及觀光協議時(中國占台灣出口的百分之四十),蔡英文希望加強與世界連結、扶植台灣品牌,以降低台灣對中國的依賴。她對時代雜誌說:「台灣需要一個新模式」。
Whether voters share her vision is a question that matters beyond Taipei. Taiwan is tiny, with a population of only 23 million, but its economy—powered by electronics, agriculture and tourism—ranks about mid-20s in the world by GDP size, with a GDP per capita about thrice that of China’s. Ceded by China’s Qing dynasty to Japan after the 1894–95 First Sino-Japanese War, colonized by Tokyo for half a century, then seized by Nationalist forces fleeing the Communists at the end of the Chinese civil war, Taiwan has long been a pawn in a regional great game. It is a linchpin for the U.S. in East Asia alongside Japan, South Korea and the Philippines, and, most important, it’s the only real democracy in the Chinese-speaking world. “This election matters because it’s a window into democracy rooted in Chinese tradition,” says Lung Ying-tai, an author and social commentator who recently stepped down as Culture Minister. “Because of Taiwan, the world is able to envision a different China.”
台灣的選民是否同意她的願景,是一件擴及台北以外的事情。台灣的土地雖小,只有兩千三百萬的人口,但是經濟因電子業,農業以及觀光業的支撐,以國內生產毛額來說在世界排名第二十幾名。台灣的國內人均產值則是中國的三倍。台灣在1894-95的中日戰爭被中國清朝割讓後,被日本殖民了半個世紀;之後在中國內戰結束時逃避共產黨的國民黨勢力給佔領。長期以來台灣是區域競爭中的一個棋子。在美國的東亞布局中,台灣、日本、南韓及菲律賓同為最關鍵的環節。更重要的是,台灣是在華語世界中唯一一個真正的民主國家。甫卸任文化部長的作者與社會評論員龍應台說:「這場選舉很重要,因為它提供了一個窗口,讓外界一探以中華文化為根基的民主……因為台灣,世界得以想像一個不一樣的中國。」
Taiwan’s politics irritate and befuddle Beijing. To the ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP), Taiwan is the province that got away, a living, breathing, voting reminder of what could happen to China if the CCP loosens its grip on its periphery, from Tibet to Xinjiang to Hong Kong. Beijing is particularly wary of a change in government from Ma’s relatively China-friendly Kuomintang (KMT) to Tsai’s firmly China-skeptic Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). When Tsai ran for President in 2012, Beijing blasted her, without actually naming her, as a “troublemaker” and “splittist”—CCP-speak reserved for Dalai Lama–level foes. “A DPP government means uncertainty for cross-strait ties,” says Lin Gang, a Taiwan specialist at Shanghai Jiao Tong University’s School of International and Public Affairs.
台灣的政治讓北京感到惱怒又百思不解。對中國共產黨來說,台灣是一個逃走的省,也是對中國活生生的提醒──若中國鬆懈對於香港、西藏及新疆等非核心地區的掌控時,可能會發生的事。北京對於台灣的政權,由對中國相對友善的馬政府輪替到對中國保持疑慮的民進黨,抱持格外戒慎的態度。蔡英文在2012年參選總統的時候,北京雖然沒有指名道姓,卻明顯對她大肆抨擊,說她是一個「麻煩製造者」或「分裂主義者」——在共產黨的術語中,這些話專門達賴喇嘛這一層級的仇敵。任教於上海交通大學國際與公共關係學院的台灣事務專家林岡說:「民進黨政府代表的是兩岸關係的不確定性。」
To the U.S., which is bound by the Taiwan Relations Act to come to the island’s aid if it’s attacked, Taiwan is a longtime friend and unofficial ally, though the strength of that friendship is being tested by China’s rise. Washington worries that Taiwan’s people, especially its youth, are growing warier of China, and that any conflict between the two might draw in the U.S. “What this election has done is crystallize the changes, the shift in public opinion,” says Shelley Rigger, a Taiwan scholar at Davidson College in North Carolina and the author of Why Taiwan Matters. “I don’t think cross-strait relations are going to be easy going forward, and that’s not something U.S. policymakers want to hear.”
對美國來說,根據《台灣關係法》,在台灣受到武力攻擊的情況下,須協防台灣。台灣是美國長期友邦和非正式盟國,儘管兩國之間友誼的強度正受到中國崛起的考驗。華府擔心台灣人民,特別是年輕人,對於中國的警戒心逐漸提高,而兩者之間的衝突可能會把美國牽扯進來。著有《台灣為何重要》(Why Taiwan Matters)一書的美國北卡羅來那州戴維森大學(Davidson College)教授任雪麗(Shelley Rigger)說:「這場選舉讓所有的改變具體化,反映出民意板塊的移動……我不認為接下來的兩岸關係會更融洽,而這不是美國的政策制定者想要聽到的東西。」
The KMT has yet to formally nominate a candidate for the top job, but the favorite is Hung Hsiu-chu, the legislature’s female deputy speaker. Nicknamed “little hot pepper” because of her diminutive stature and feisty manner, Hung, 67, would be a contrast to the more professorial Tsai should she get the KMT’s nod. “I don’t think [Tsai] is a strong opponent,” Hung tells TIME. Yet the DPP’s choice, who has already started pressing the flesh islandwide, is spirited too. “People have this vision of me as a conservative person, but I’m actually quite adventurous,” she says. And possessed of a sharp sense of humor—when I compliment her cooking, Tsai looks at me with mock exasperation: “I have a Ph.D., you know.”
國民黨雖然還未正式提名總統候選人,但目前最被看好的就是立法院副院長洪秀柱。因為身材嬌小與好戰性格而被封為「小辣椒」的洪秀柱(67歲),如果獲黨的提名,將與擁有學者形象的蔡英文,呈現顯著的對比。洪秀柱向時代記者表示:「我不認為蔡英文是一位強的對手」。然而,民進黨的候選人已經士氣高昂,在全台各地展開競選活動。蔡英文說:「有些人認為我是一個保守的人,但我其實是很愛冒險的」。她有一種犀利的幽默感──當我讚美她的廚藝時,她用搞笑的語氣假裝惱怒說:「我可是擁有博士學位的。」
Tsai grew up in a home on Taipei’s Zhongshan Road North, a street named after Taiwan’s symbolic father, Sun Yat-sen, the Chinese revolutionary who helped overthrow the Qing and co-founded the KMT. Her own father, an auto mechanic turned property developer, was of the Confucian kind: he encouraged her to study hard but also expected her, as the youngest daughter, to devote herself to his care. “I was not considered a kid that would be successful in my career,” says Tsai.
蔡英文在台北的中山北路長大,這條街是以革命推翻清朝、成立國民黨並視為國父的孫逸仙命名。她的父親是一位修車技師,後來成為土地開發商。他承襲了儒家思想,希望蔡英文要用功讀書,但也期許身為小女兒的蔡英文可以留在父親身邊照顧他。蔡英文說:「我小時候不是一個被認為未來會有成就的孩子。」
After attending university in Taiwan, she studied law at Cornell in New York because, she says, it seemed the place for a young woman who “wanted to have a revolutionary life.” From there she went to the London School of Economics, where she earned her Ph.D., also in law, in less than three years. “That pleased my father,” she says. When he called her home, she obliged, returning to Taiwan to teach and, in 1994, to enter government in a series of high-profile but mostly policy-oriented roles in the Fair Trade Commission, National Security Council and Mainland Affairs Council.
在台灣大學畢業後,她前往紐約州康乃爾大學研讀法律,因為她說,這是一個「想過革命性的生活」的年輕女子該去的地方。之後,她前往倫敦政治經濟學院攻讀法學博士,並且三年不到就獲得學位。她說:「這讓我父親很高興」。她遵從父親的意思返回台灣,先回大學教書並在1994年進入政府,出任公平交易委員會、國安會及陸委會等一系列重要的、政策導向的職位。
Even close supporters say Tsai was, and perhaps still is, an unlikely politician, especially for the DPP. Taiwan’s opposition party was forged in struggle and led by veterans of the democracy movement—a fight Tsai mostly missed. The Kaohsiung Incident in 1979—a human-rights rally that was violently broken up by security forces, galvanizing the democracy movement—took place while Tsai was overseas, cocooned in the ivory tower. If the archetypal DPP operative is a bare-knuckle street fighter, Tsai is an Olympic fencer—restrained and precise.
就連許多親近蔡英文的支持者都認為,蔡英文是一位非典型的政治人物,特別就民進黨而言。身為在野黨的民進黨,在台灣民主運動的奮鬥過程中焠煉而成,由民主運動的老兵所成立,這是一場蔡英文錯過的戰役。1979年高雄的美麗島事件,當一場人權遊行遭警政單位暴力驅散,而後來激勵了台灣的民主運動,蔡英文當時正在國外求學,受到象牙塔的庇護。若說民進黨的典型人物是赤手空拳的街頭鬥士,蔡英文則是一位奧林匹克級的劍術家:自我克制又精確到位。
She stepped into the spotlight in 2008, becoming party chair when the DPP found itself booted from office, with its chief Chen Shui-bian, the outgoing President, later convicted of corruption. While she possessed a deep knowledge of policy, Tsai did not then seem like a leader. “She used to sort of hide behind me when we went door to door,” recalls legislator Hsiao Bi-khim, a longtime colleague and friend. “People compared her to a lost bunny in the forest, with wolves surrounding, both from within the party and outside.
在2008年民進黨失去政權,而前總統陳水扁隨即遭貪汙罪起訴的時刻,蔡英文踏入了鎂光燈下,成為民進黨主席。雖然蔡英文對於政策擁有深度的瞭解,但當時她還不像一位領導人。長期以來是她同事與朋友的立法委員蕭美琴說「以前當我們挨家挨戶去拜訪時,她有點會躲在我身後」。「有些形容她為一個在森林裡迷路的兔子,被黨內與黨外的狼群包圍。」
After an unsuccessful 2010 mayoral bid, Tsai ran for, and also lost, the presidency in 2012. Jason Liu, a veteran DPP speechwriter, says now that the campaign did not “sell” Tsai well enough. The ideas were strong, but the delivery left “distance between her and the voters.” Ironically, it was not until her concession speech that Tsai seemed to connect emotionally with Taiwan’s citizens. “You may cry,” she told the tearful crowd. “But don’t lose heart.”
2010年,蔡英文參與市長選舉失利,在2012年也沒順利當選總統。民進黨資深文膽劉建忻表示,當時的競選總部對於「行銷」蔡英文這個概念,做得不夠好;雖然擁有許多好點子,但是執行上還是「讓選民感到有所距離」。諷刺地,一直到敗選感言,蔡英文才似乎與台灣人民產生情感上的連結。她對含著淚水的群眾表示:「你可以哭泣,但不能洩氣。」
A lot has changed since 2012. Eleven hours after making eggs, with a policy meeting, a cross-country train ride and a harbor tour behind her, Tsai is addressing a couple hundred students at a university in the southern city of Kaohsiung, a DPP stronghold. She’s in lecture mode, at ease, talking about her party’s economic plans: stronger regional links and a focus on innovation to support small businesses. “How many of you went to Taipei for the Sunflower protests?” she asks in Mandarin. At least a third raise their hands.
2012年之後的台灣,歷經了許多改變。蔡英文煎蛋後的11個小時後,歷經了一場政策會議、搭乘高鐵從北一路向南、緊接著進行高雄碼頭導覽。她抵達南台灣民進黨的重鎮高雄,向數百位大學生發表演說。她以一派輕鬆的授課模式,闡述著民進黨的經濟計畫:加強區域間的連結,並聚焦於支持創新的小型經濟。她用中文詢問在場學生「你們之中有多少人去台北參加過太陽花學運?」現場至少有三分之一的學生舉起了手。
Taiwan’s students were once seen as apathetic. But during spring last year, Taipei was swept up by thousands-strong demonstrations over a services pact with China. Student and civic groups worried that the deal could hurt Taiwan’s economy and leave it vulnerable to pressure from Beijing. They felt it was pushed through without adequate public scrutiny. The Sunflower Movement, as it came to be called after a florist donated bundles of the blooms, grew into a grassroots revolt, culminating in the March 18 storming of the legislature.
台灣的學生過去一度被視為相當冷漠。但是在去年的春天,台北市被數以千計的抗議者淹沒,反對與中國簽訂的服務貿易協議。學生與公民團體擔憂這個協議會傷害台灣經濟,讓台灣的經濟受制於中國壓力而變得脆弱。他們也認為,服貿協議的推動並沒有經過適當的公民審議。太陽花運動是民間累積的抗爭與不滿,在3月18日這天一舉衝進立法院,運動的稱號是由於抗爭期間一位花販捐贈了大量太陽花而因此命名。
The movement was grounded in questions of social justice. Since coming to power in 2008, Ma has argued that cross-strait commerce is the key to the island’s fortunes, signing 21 trade deals. Yet young people in particular wonder if the deals benefit only Big Business on both sides of the strait. They say rapprochement with Beijing has left them none the richer, and agonize over the high cost of housing, flat wages and the possibility of local jobs going to China. A sign during a protest outside the Presidential Palace on March 30 last year captured the mood: “We don’t have another Taiwan to sell.”
這個運動的主要訴求就是社會正義。自從國民黨2008年執政以來,簽訂了21個兩岸貿易協定,馬英九主張兩岸的商業往來是台灣最關鍵的財富來源。但是年輕人質疑這項論述,他們認為這些貿易協議只有兩岸的大財團獲利。他們說北京的和解政策並沒有讓年輕人變得富有,反而讓他們受困於高房價、停滯的薪資、以及在地工作機會可能流失到中國的可能性。在去年3月30日於總統府外的抗議中,有個標語最能捕捉整體的社會氛圍:「台灣只有一個,賣了就沒了!」
The emphasis on quality of life, and not just macro-indicators, is good news for Tsai. Her vision for a more economically independent Taiwan did not sway the electorate in 2012 but may now have stronger appeal. The KMT, bruised by the Sunflower protests and then battered by fed-up voters in midterm polls last fall, is trying to remake itself as a more populist party. Timothy Yang, a former Foreign Minister who is now vice president of the National Policy Foundation, the KMT’s think tank, says the party stands by its cross-strait record. But even Yang, a KMT stalwart, is keen to address the issue of equity: “The benefits of this interaction with mainland China should be shared with the general public.”
台灣社會對於生活品質的重視,而非僅僅強調宏觀經濟指標,對蔡英文來說是件好事。她希望打造一個經濟上更加獨立的台灣,雖然這個理念在2012年並沒有說動選民,但,現在可能更有吸引力。國民黨在太陽花運動中受到重創,在去年秋天的期中選舉中又再度被選民以選票教訓。現在,國民黨試圖把自己再造成一個民粹的政黨。目前擔任國民黨智庫『國家政策基金會』副董事長的前外交部長楊進添先生受訪時說道,「國民黨堅持其兩岸的立場」。但即便像楊進添這樣堅定的國民黨員,也熱衷於解決公平的議題。他說:「兩岸互動的利益,應該要與全民共享!」
Tsai should easily carry traditional DPP support: much of the south, the youth vote, and those who identify as Taiwanese and who are not a part of the elite that came from China after the CCP victory in 1949. The DPP’s missing link is Big Business, which supports the KMT and closer ties with the mainland, where many Taiwan companies are invested. Tsai recognizes that this is a constituency she needs to woo but doesn’t seem clear as to how, beyond saying, “Our challenge is to produce something that is sensible to both sides without being considered as a traitor to the friends we used to be with when we were an opposition party.”
蔡英文要得到傳統民進黨的支持並不難,例如南部選民、年輕選票、還有那些認同自己是台灣人,而不是1949年中國共產黨勝利後來自中國的精英份子。然而,民進黨缺乏與大企業的連結,因為台灣企業大量投資大陸,而其中這些大財團多半支持國民黨,以及與大陸建立更緊密的關係。蔡英文也理解到這是她必須要去吸引的一群選民,但是對於如何進行並沒有太清楚的圖像。她說:「我們的挑戰是要去創造雙方都認為合理的立場,又不能被我們在野時的朋友認為是叛徒。」
That will be hard. The KMT has long argued that it, not the DPP, is best qualified to run the economy, which, corruption apart, did not do well under Chen. Tsai’s supporters concede that many citizens feel the same way—that the DPP can be an effective opposition but not administration. “The KMT has always portrayed itself as more suited to guide the economy,” says J. Michael Cole, a Taipei-based senior fellow with the University of Nottingham’s China Policy Institute and a senior officer at Tsai’s Thinking Taiwan Foundation. “There’s this stubborn perception that a DPP government would be bad for business.”
這是困難的挑戰。國民黨長期主張自己比民進黨更擅長治理經濟,尤其陳水扁執政時期除了貪污,經濟表現並不好。蔡英文的支持者也同意,確實有些民眾認為民進黨可是一個稱職的反對黨,但不是執政黨。諾丁漢大學中國政策研究中心資深研究員暨小英基金會資深主管寇謐將(J. Michael Cole)說:「國民黨把自己描繪是一個更適合主導經濟的政黨。另外也有一種僵化的刻版印象,認為民進黨執政對企業不利。」
It’s a narrative that the CCP backs and may well float as the campaign progresses, either directly, in China’s state-controlled press, or indirectly, through, for instance, its connections in Taiwan’s business community. “Beijing is going to want to make a point through all sorts of channels, including Big Business, that cross-strait relations will not be as smooth if you vote a government into power that has not accepted the foundation that has underpinned developments of the last eight years,” says Alan Romberg, a distinguished fellow at the Stimson Center, a Washington, D.C., think tank.
這種論調受到中國共產黨的支持,並且今隨著選戰的進展不斷被拋出。共產黨可能直接地利用中國控制的媒體影響選舉,或是間接地透過中國與台灣商業界的連結。美國華府智庫史汀森研究中心(Stimson Center)資深學者容安瀾(Alan Romberg)說:「北京將會透過大企業等各種管道來闡述其立場,表明要是台灣人民讓一個不接受過去八年兩岸發展基礎的政府執政,兩岸關係的發展將不會如現在一樣平順。」
Beijing has never been receptive to a DPP government, but it is particularly negative now. Since coming to power in 2012, China’s leader Xi Jinping has proved himself to be more assertive and nationalistic than most expected, a man not eager to compromise. Last September he told a delegation from the island that China and Taiwan might be one day be reunited under Hong Kong’s “one country, two systems” formula, which is rejected by both the KMT and DPP and, surveys consistently show, the vast majority of Taiwan’s people. This May, Xi warned again about the danger of “separatist forces”—a comment widely interpreted as a swipe at the DPP.
北京對於民進黨政權的接受度向來不高,但現在尤其抱持負面的態度。中國領導人習近平在2012年掌權後,證明自己比外界想像的還更加武斷,帶有更強烈的民族主義色彩,是一個不輕易妥協的人。去年九月,他對一個來自台灣的代表團說,中國和台灣可望採用香港「一國兩制」的模式統一,然而這卻是一個國民黨和民進黨都反對的方案,而且民調也一再顯示,絕大多數的台灣人民無法接受。今年五月,習近平再度警告「分裂主義勢力」會帶來的危險──這段說詞普遍被外界詮釋為對民進黨的抨擊。
Cross-strait relations are managed according to the so-called 1992 Consensus reached by Beijing and Taipei (then also governed by the KMT), a formula the KMT’s Yang calls “a masterpiece of ambiguity.” Under the 1992 Consensus, both sides acknowledge that there is only one China, but without specifying what exactly that means. This, Yang says, has allowed the KMT to move forward on bilateral trade, transport and tourism without being forced to address whether “one China” is the China imagined by Beijing or by Taipei.
兩岸關係是治理目前根據北京和台北(當時為國民黨執政)之間所謂的九二共識,這是一個被國民黨的楊進添形容為「模糊性的一大鉅作」的政策。根據九二共識,雙方承認只有一個中國,但不表明一個中國的確切意含。楊進添說,這讓國民黨在推展雙邊貿易、交通和觀光方面得以取得進展,而不需被迫去回答「一個中國」究竟是北京或是台北心目中的中國。
The DPP has long promoted de jure independence. The first clause in its charter calls for “the establishment of an independent sovereignty known as the Republic of Taiwan,” not the Republic of China, Taiwan’s official name. This platform resonates with the DPP base but is increasingly untenable given China’s economic clout and growing power on the world stage. While the first DPP presidency under Chen was hardly a break from the past, it did see a cooling with Beijing. Things warmed again under Ma. Lin, the Taiwan expert at Shanghai Jiao Tong University, says Tsai is somewhere between Chen and Ma: “If she wins the election, she will not pursue Taiwan independence. But she will not promote the development of the cross-strait relationship as Ma Ying-jeou did.”
民進黨過去長期以來推動台灣的法理獨立。民進黨黨綱第一條闡明「建立主權獨立自主的台灣共和國」,而非台灣的正式國號中華民國。這個立場獲得民進黨基本盤的認同,卻在中國的經濟實力成長與中國在世界舞台上崛起之下,越來越無法實現。儘管陳水扁主政時期的民進黨政府跟過去的政策並無太大差別,但跟北京的關係確實趨向冷淡。馬英九主政時期兩岸關係再度暖化。上海交通大學的台灣專家林岡說,蔡英文的立場介於馬英九和陳水扁之間。他說:「如果她勝選,她不會追求台灣獨立。但她也不會像馬英九一樣推動兩岸關係的發展。」
Tsai stresses that she will not alter the politics between Taiwan and China, but she is vague about whether she will repeal the DPP’s independence clause. And unification? That, she says, “is something you have to resolve democratically—it is a decision to be made by the people here.”
蔡英文強調她不會改變台灣和中國之間的政治關係,但對於是否撤回台獨條文卻是依然維持模糊。至於統一呢?她說:「那是必須經由民主程序解決的事情——這是一個必須經由此地的人民來做的決定。」
Hung, Tsai’s potential KMT opponent, says the DPP flag bearer needs to clarify her stance on cross-strait relations. “People ask her, ‘What is the status quo?’ and she can’t say anything specific,” says Hung. The KMT’s Yang offers a metaphor: “Before you harvest, you have to plow the land, transplant the seedlings, fertilize; all the work … has been done by the KMT, and yet they are going to harvest the crop?”
蔡英文的濳在對手洪秀柱說,民進黨的掌舵手需要清楚地闡明她對兩岸關係的立場。洪秀柱說:「大家問她『維持現狀是什麼意思?』,她卻沒有給具體的回應。」國民黨的楊進添用一個比喻:「在收割之前,要先耕地、播種、施肥;所有的工作……都已經被國民黨完成了,然而他們現在卻想要收割?」
Tsai believes she will win that right. Several days before I return to my Beijing base, over Taiwan-Japanese fusion in Kaohsiung, Tsai is quietly confident that she will gain the trust of Taiwan’s voters and secure victory, whatever Beijing might think. She puts a final piece of tuna on my plate. It’s from Pingtung County in the south, where she was born. “Go back to Beijing,” says Tsai, “and tell them you were served by the next President of Taiwan.”
—With reporting by Zoher Abdoolcarim, Gladys Tsai and Natalie Tso/Taipei
蔡英文相信她會贏得這項權利。在我返回北京駐點的前幾天,我們在一家位於高雄的台式日本料理小店用餐,蔡英文對於取得台灣選民的信任並贏得選戰,展現出低調的自信。當時,她把最後一片鮪魚夾到我的盤子上。那塊鮪魚來自南方的屏東,她的出生地。「妳回北京以後,告訴他們,」蔡英文說:「台灣的下一任總統曾經為妳服務過。」
延伸報導: Abdoolcarim, Gladys Tsai, Natalie Tso
2